I believe this to be true.
First of all I should point out I don't have a car anymore, so I don't have a vested interest here. It's a matter of principle, not wanting my life to be easier.
When I did have a car it cost me £1200 a year to insure, with three years' no claims. My mum now has it and pays £230 a year.
Why does she pay less? Because she's older, and the insurance company judges that she lives in a more affluent area. Both things that would make her more capable of paying £1200 a year for insurance than I was. Not that she should have to pay more, but is it really right that the people least able to afford these sorts of premiums are always the ones who get them, not through any fault of their own, but because they live in a deprived area or are younger?
If you have an accident, I think it's fair that your personal premium is affected by that, but beyond that, it is a completely back to front system which gives the people most affected by the recession another load to bear from those completely unaffected by it.
I'm aware it would never happen as there's too much profit in the current system, but on a moral level, it's hard to defend the current situation.